9911796707
TMI Blog1986 (2) TMI 336X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r Mahdauri Housing Scheme at Allahabad. The aforesaid respondent had claimed compensation at the rate of ₹ 20/ - per sq. yard. The Special Land Acquisition Officer through his award dated 13 -8 -1976 determined the compensation at ₹ 52699.12 for the land acquired. Aggrieved with the amount of compensation determined by the Special Land Acquisition Officer, the aforesaid respondent filed applications under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act giving rise to the References Nos. 12 and 13 of 1977 which have been dealt with by the Tribunal through the impugned judgment. Now, aggrieved by the decision of the Tribunal, the State of U.P. has preferred the above -noted appeal. The learned Counsel for the appellant has contended befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ) of the Act which reads as follows : (3) In every case under either of the preceding Sub -sections the Collector shall, at the time of taking possession, offer to the persons interested compensation for the standing crops and trees (if any) on such land and for any other damage sustained by them caused by such sudden dispossession and not excepted in Section 24 and, in case such offer is not accepted, the value of such crops and trees and the amount of such other damage shall be allowed for in awarding compensation for the land under the provisions herein contained. 6. He has also invited our attention to the provisions of Section 25 of the Act which reads as below : (1) When the applicant has made a claim to compensation, pursuant to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ision of the Tribunal cannot be challenged on that score. 8. As regards the second contention of the learned Counsel for the appellant our attention has been invited to the provisions of Section 25(2) of the above Act and it has been stressed that as the contesting respondent had not made specific claims with regard to certain items, therefore, the Tribunal could not award the amount in excess of the amount awarded by the Collector. The learned Counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the ruling reported in, AIR 1936 Lah 733, Secy. of State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh. No doubt the learned Judges of that Court have also observed at page 736 : Col. 2 as below: ...As regards the remaining claims preferred by Nathu Ram admittedly he pref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation amongst all persons known or believed to be interested. 9. In : AIR 1966 Andh Pra 15, K. Subrahmanymma v. District Welfare Officer Eluru, Hon'ble Venkatesam, J. at page 17 Col. 2 paragraph 7 has indicated that non -compliance with Section 9 is provided for by Section 25. Section 25(2) compels obedience to the notice under Section 9(2) to appear and state the claim as required thereunder to enable the Acquisition Officer to make a proper award. If without sufficient cause Section 9(2) is not complied with, an absolute bar arises as to the obtaining of a greater sum than what was awarded by the Collector. The rigour of Section 25(2) is mitigated by Section 25(3). According to it if the Court is satisfied that there was sufficient r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 974 and the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal in the impugned judgment has accepted the explanation by the respondent for not preferring objection with regard to specific items on the advice of her counsel, we think that the Presiding Officer has rightly accepted the explanation and has not committed any legality in awarding compensation to the contesting respondent in view of the provisions of Section 25(3) of the Act. 11. Under Section 11 a duty is cast upon the Collector to make award for the land acquired and if the land had construction, trees, crops etc. over it, it was his duty to take into account the value of things attached to the earth and the benefits arising out of the land as well as permanently fastened to anything attached ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 15 and : AIR 1967 Andh Pra 56. The views expressed in, AIR 1936 Lah 733 Secy. of State v. Tikka Jagtar Singh are not applicable to the facts of the present case. In the present case the provisions of the Section 25(3) of the Act are attracted and the Tribunal was fully justified in awarding compensation to the contesting respondent with regard to the trees and crops standing over the disputed land at the time of taking possession in the year 1974. 13. As regards the third contention we find that the contesting respondent had put forward her claim in her applications under Section 18 of the Act regarding constructions, trees and crops standing the disputed land and the Tribunal has accepted the explanation and awarded compensation with rega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
